Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 094

Friday, February 13 2004

• Re: Giyur
• Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Tzadik VRa Lo
• Dishwashers on Shabbos
• Chomas Hadas
• Re: Midrash and Method
• Fwd: Chulin 007: The powers of evil
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• AishDas Melaveh Malkah
• Re: Giyur
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• Preparation for Learning

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2004 at 19:25, Zev Sero wrote:
>>Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
>>>Yisro went to be megayer his family. Would being megayer his own
>>>family be an exception even nowadays to the halacha of not "pushing'
>>>giyur?

>>I don't believe there is a halacha to discourage giyur or even not to
>>push it. 

> I always understood the Gemara in Yevamos as making it dependent on 
> the status of the Jewish people. If our status is good (e.g. in the 
> times of David and Shlomo), there is a possible ulterior motive for 
> being m'gayeor, and therefore we discourage it and don't push it. If 
> our status is poor, then we don't discourage it, and in some 
> circumstances maybe even push it. 

Even at such a time, we do want geirim, but we don't have a good,
generally applicable way to sort out the suitable candidates from the
gold-hunters. Think how finding a suitable shidduch for ones children
can be harder for a rich person than for a poor one. So as a general
rule, in such times, the official batei din don't accept gerim; if a
private bet din is convinced that a particular candidate is sincere,
they can go ahead and convert them (but the history of these private
batei-din's judgement duing Shlomo's reign wasn't the best).

>> We *want* geirim (lo niglu yisrael levein haumot ela kedei
>> sheyitvasfu aleihem geirim),

> Which doesn't really shtim with the Gemaras that talk about kashin 
> geirim l'Yisrael because they excel at mitzvos more than many of us 
> do. In other words, our natural tendency is NOT to want geirim 
> because they make us look bad. 

The reason you give for gerim being 'kashim leyisrael' is not in the
gemara, it's the interpretation of R Avraham Hager. The pashut pshat
in the gemara is that they are 'kashim' because so many of them leave.
As I said, we want gerim, but we only want quality gerim, the kind who
will stay for the rest of their lives, and raise their children to stay.
The experience in the time of chazal, when supposedly 10% of the Roman
Empire was at one time Jewish, and nearly all of those converts then left,
wasn't encouraging, and I think that's what the gemara is talking about,
and that's why chazal said the recruiting strategy had to change, to sort
out the quality candidates from the dilettantes. But at the same time they
stressed that we must be careful *not* to scare away a sincere candidate.

>> Such a project would seem to me entirely appropriate even today.

> I disagree. Especially in today's environment where we have 
> chashashos of geirim coming because of intermarriage (US and other 
> western countries) and to improve their economic status (Russians 
> moving to Israel), I think we have to be very careful about accepting 
> geirim. 

Again, being careful, and screening out unsuitable candidates, is
not the same thing as not encouraging gerut for suitable candidates.
Screening out unsuitable shidduchim for ones children does not mean
one wants them to remain single. The question was about Yitro going
to convert his family; it seems to me that such a project was entirely
appropriate then, and would still be appropriate today. If someone has
goyishe relatives, and can encourage them to see the truth of Torah and
to become sincere converts, that would IMO be a good thing. Pushing them
to go through the motions of conversion without a clear notion of the
depth of their commitment, would not be.

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                        potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                        before the war.                         - David Kay

Posted by: gershon.dubin@juno.com
> Yisro went to be megayer his family. Would being megayer his own family
> be an exception even nowadays to the halacha of not "pushing' giyur?

I have a related question. Wouldn't after the nisim of YamSuf it be
considered as in the days of Dovid and Shelomo when they did not accept
geirim?

M. Levin

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:25:31AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Posted by: gershon.dubin@juno.com
:> Yisro went to be megayer his family. Would being megayer his own family
:> be an exception even nowadays to the halacha of not "pushing' giyur?

: I ahve a related question. Wouldn't after the nisim of YamSuf it be
: considered as in the days of Dovid and Shelomo when they did not accept
: geirim?

These questions only make sense if you assume this is a case of ein
muqdam ume'uchar. Otherwise, he left to teach them to comply to
beris Noach or to join Beris Avraham. Not true geirus to a beris that
didn't exist yet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

Yesterday, in Utah, a seven year old girl who had opened the door to a
relative's car, climbed in and asked by her for a ride to school. She was
turned down because the aunt was in a hurry, not having time to drive five
miles out of her way. She then climbed out and closed the car door. The
relative then drove off. But the young girl's coat had gotten caught in
the door and was then dragged to death. The driver did not realize she
was dragging the young girl until stopped three miles later by a witness.

This got me to thinking again about the most perplexing of philosophical
questions, the question of Tzadik V'Ra Lo. Now it is likely this girl
was not Jewish. Bit the scenario cannot be escaped. The torturous death
that this young minor child endured before she finally died is simply
beyond human comprehension.

Of course we have our own similar tragedies in our long history as Jews
that we can reflect on such as the Assarah Hurgei Malchus, or perhaps the
most perplexing question: that of the holocaust and all the humiliation,
torture, and finally death suffered by millions of Jews including many
Tzadikim.

But every time something like this happens I hear myself asking,
"Why?" Of course the answer I always give myself is that ultimately
we cannot know God's plan for the world. It is not for us to know.
There is infinite justice in creation, but we cannot see it. But, it is
one thing to pay lip service to this principle and another thing to have
the kind of Emunah that allows you to accept it. Assume for a moment that
this girl was Jewish had been on the bus in Jerusalem last week. In fact
you do not even have to make up this kind of scenario. IIRC there have
been children who were victims of suicide bombings. But imagine that a
young child who was killed in this way first suffered the most painful of
deaths, slow and agonizing... perhaps first burned over ninety percent of
her body... suffering beyond human description or even the ability for
anyone to comprehend... and then finally dying. One can perhaps try to
theologically explain that mental Yisurim suffered by mothers or fathers
or other family members at the sight of seeing this kind of suffering
by a child. One can perhaps say that in some way it is a Kaparah for
Aveiros that are known only to them and God... even when the parents are
Tzadikim. We do not know the individual circumstances of any individual
are and cannot, therefore, make judgments. Nor are we permitted to make
such judgments. I am merely saying that in some way we can rationalize it
away in theological terms. Even the holocaust can be rationalized this
way, although in reality this is a virtual impossibility because of the
sheer numbers. But in a philosophical sense we can at least understand
the principle of a divine plan wherein God's justice is ultimately meted
out both in this world and the world to come for every single Neshama
ever created. But at the same time we cannot say that the generation of
the holocaust must have deserved what they got because too many innocent
people, it seems to the naked eye, got the same torture that everyone
else did... Tzadikm together with Reshaim together with Beinonim. But
the philosophical rationale exists. And once you start talking in terms
of millions, you lose perspective and focus.

But then there is the "Power of One".

How can anyone even begin to understand the dragging death of one
innocent seven year old girl by a relative who was unaware of what she
was doing? This (and other events like this that occur in our time)
illustrates better than anything the nature of the classic question
of Tzadik V'Ra Lo. There is no philosophical rationalization for the
torture and death of a 7 year old girl that can only have been decreed
by God. One cannot attribute this to evi,l the way one could the Assarah
Hurgei Machus, or the holocaust. Jews tortured and killed at the hands
of their fallow man, while still theologically perplexing, still have
an evil human perpetrator... the Romans in the former case and the Nazis
in the latter. But for a minor child to have died in this way without an
evil human hand begs the question: Why? What possible justice is it for
this child to have died at all, let alone in the most torturous of ways?

To say she was merely a vehicle for punishment of Parental or other family
members' sins...that the mental anguish of thinking... and rethinking
what must have been the suffering of the last few minutes of life for
this young girl is unsatisfying in the extreme. Is this sufficient reason
for this event to have been decreed by God? Parental punishment cannot
explain the torture this young girl must have endured before she died.

If one is honest one can only say that this type of event is enough to
test the limits of anyone's Emunah. All we can do...all we MUST do as
Maminim, is go on with our lives believing in the ultimate justice of
the Almighty and remain with the question unanswered.

...and be more perplexed then ever.

HM

> R' Chaim David Regensburg in his sefer "Mishmeres Chaim" has a teshuva
> about dishwashers on Shabbos, and permits their use on a timer. Avsha
> milsa is a very difficult concept to pin down, but certainly the oilem
> is meikel on many things (such as lights and air conditioners) which
> could have been characterized as avsha milsa or a related concept, and
> in fact have been classified as such by some of the greatest poskim. I
> think that it has become mekkubal that household appliances are not
> b'geder avsha milsa.

What about outdoor sprinklers. It is generally now paskined that that
is not uvsha milsa and I alway found it difficult to understand. There
is noise and visibility; why is this not considered different than mills
grinding on Shabbos?

M.Levin

Does anyone have an accurate date for the first edition of the Chofetz
Chaim's sefer Chomas Hadas? I suspect it was around 1903.

Yaakov Wise

> I am particularly interested in how R' Meir would define "omek peshuto
> shel mikra" and distinguish it from "peshuto shel mikra."

The term itself comes form the Rashbam. I think that there are 3 levels
of depth in pshat.

1. What rashi calls mashmo'o - the apparent or at first glance meaning. A
lot of this is simply error based on inadequate understanding of the
language and context.

2.Pshat - a considered interpretation, mostly in local context. Often,
what makes sense locally does not make sense in a broader context. At
times, one must choose between poor local fit and poor general fit.

3. Omek Hapshat. A not easily apparent interpretation that requires
bringing to bear distant context, cognate usage, grammar, Torah shBaal
Pe and the interpretative traditon of a particular community or school
of thought. Sometimes, one is forced to go more in depth to discover (or
defend) the interpretation of the CHazal. That explain the stimulus for
deeper investigation but does not in any way, invalidate the result. As
we know, there is no text without interpretation. Ultimately, the purpose
of interpretation is to reconcile the particular with the general. All
of these are examples of the general. Even personal experience and
knowledge is an example of the general, accounting for why people differ
on the what they consider more compelling. However, this often requires
making unconscious assumptions into conscious ones, a process analogous
to digging deeply, and reviewing, at least in one's own mind, a great
deal more material - hence the apellation omek hapshat.

M.Levin

Since we were discussing this gemara, someone sent me this email to
share with the list.

-mi

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:23:16 +0200
From: Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@NETVISION.NET.IL>
Subject: Chulin 007: The powers of evil

(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                      daf@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

Chulin 007: The powers of evil

Dr. M. Kaplan asked:

The Gemara first quotes Rebbi Chanina who says that nothing (even
"Keshafim") has power in this world except for Hashem, as it is written,
"There is nothing besides Him" (Devarim 4). Rebbi Chanina further states
that "a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above." The
Gemara then quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that sorcerers are called
"Keshafim" because they are "Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah," --
"they contravene the powers of above."

How are we to reconcile these two statements?

---------------------------------------------- 
The Kollel replies:

The answer to your question involves two elements. First, Rebbi Chanina is
not teaching that bodily harm that is caused by another person is decreed
from above. Rather, he is referring to what happens to a person through
the natural course of events without human intervention. The reason
for this is because, as the Or ha'Chaim writes (in Bereishis 37:21),
a person -- who has the power of free choice -- is able to intervene
in another person's life and even to kill him, even though it was not
decreed from above on that person to die. (The source for this teaching
can be found in the Zohar on that verse. According to some, there is
a Machlokes Tana'im in the Zohar regarding this point.) Therefore,
just as a person can physically damage someone else even though it was
not ordained from above, a person can also damage someone else through
his use of sorcery, even though it was not ordained from above. In this
manner, the Keshafim can contravene the destiny decreed from above.

(We may wonder why the phrase "Makchishin Pamalya Shel Ma'alah" is
used to describe only sorcery, when a person can contravene what was
preordained with physical intervention as well. The answer is that when
he contravenes with physical force, he is not enlisting any of the other
powers or creations of Hashem to his use. Keshafim, in contrast, enlist
the powers of above, which normally would have brought a different fate
to the subject involved. The reason why a person can turn the powers
above to his use is because Hashem instilled such an ability into the
nature that He created, which allows a person to control certain powers
of the physical and metaphysical world.)

The second part of the answer to your question is that Keshafim cannot
damage every person. There are certain people, such as Rebbi Chanina (who
says that "a person does not hurt his finger unless decreed from above"),
who are invulnerable to the powers of Keshafim. This is discussed by RAV
CHAIM of VOLOZHEN in his classic work, NEFESH HA'CHAIM (3:12). He writes
that the power of sorcery comes from the control that Hashem gave to man
over certain "lower" metaphysical powers, powers that come through the
stars and constellations. They do not have control over the powers that
come from the holy "Merkavah" of Hashem, and the realm of the Mal'achim
(celestial beings). When a person "has firmly established Emunah in his
heart that there is no other force in the world other than the will of
Hashem," and "his thoughts are so connected to the Master of all forces
that it is clear to him that nothing else has any control or existence
at all without Hashem's will," he can be confident that the forces of
sorcery will have no influence over him (unless Hashem so desires). When
Rebbi Chanina said that the sorcerers cannot affect him because, "Ein
Od Milvado," he was emphasizing the clarity of his perfect faith. People
such as Rebbi Chanina are invulnerable to sorcery.

Rav Chaim of Volozhen continues that when a person firmly establishes
this belief in his heart, he can be confident than not only Keshafim
cannot affect him, but that no other source, such as other persons, can
cause him harm. It seems from his words that even the will of a person,
who has the power of free choice, cannot affect a person who cleaves to
Hashem and fully accepts in his mind and heart that there is no other
force that has any power in the world other than Hashem alone.

M. Kornfeld

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
majordomo@shemayisrael.com with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 07:25:37PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Presumably Yisro went to tell his family what he had learned...

> Apparantly he failed, as the Keini still existed as a separate people
> (or at least a tribe of Midian) 40 years later.

Eh? Where do we see them as a tribe of Midian? They weren't part of
the 12 Tribes of Yisrael - they couldn't be, but where do you see an
indication that their geirus was not complete and sincere? Weren't they
known even by then as a clan devoted to Torah study, and weren't they
given the site of Yericho as a temporary (~440 years) home?

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 03:36:52PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Apparantly he failed, as the Keini still existed as a separate people
:> (or at least a tribe of Midian) 40 years later.

: Eh? Where do we see them as a tribe of Midian? They weren't part of
: the 12 Tribes of Yisrael - they couldn't be...

Geirim have a place in Yisrael, as do Leviim (another non-tribe).

In Sanhedrin 106a, we learn that when Bil'am, in Midian (the one in
Jordan) approached HaKeini, it refers to Yisro's clan.

See the discussion "Question on today's haftorah" from the Q page on
the archive's index. I took that refernece from my post of last March
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n132.shtml#04>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

[RMLevin:]
> The term itself comes form the Rashbam. I think that there are 3 levels
> of depth in pshat.
> 1. What rashi calls mashmo'o - the apparent or at first glance meaning. A
> lot of this is simply error based on inadequate understanding of the
> language and context.
> 2.Pshat - a considered interpretation, mostly in local context. Often,
> what makes sense locally does not make sense in a broader context. At
> times, one must choose between poor local fit and poor general fit.
> 3. Omek Hapshat. A not easily apparent interpretation that requires
> bringing to bear distant context, cognate usage, grammar, Torah shBaal
> Pe and the interpretative traditon of a particular community or school
> of thought. Sometimes, one is forced to go more in depth to discover (or
> defend) the interpretation of the CHazal....

My impression of how the Rashbam uses "omek peshuto shel mikra" differs
from R' Meir's. For example, in Bereshit 37:28, dibur hamatchil:
vayaavru, the Rashbam reconciles a discrepancy in the text without
recourse to the factors R' Meir offers in his definition below (unless
you want to call Bereshit 45:4 distant context. I'm not inclined to
do so, because the Rashbam only cites it to discount it as a possible
counter-proof to his interpretation.)

I would argue with R' Meir's understanding of the term "peshat"
in general. Bear with me while I quote something from my book: "The
act of interpretation is not ordinarily the act of consciously weighing
options. For most of us, the meaning of what we read seems self-evident.
Asked to defend our interpretation of a given text, we can usually offer
an argument in its favor, but in doing so we are engaged in the conscious
reconstruction of a largely unconscious process. While reading, we don't
think about the reasons for our interpretations--we simply understand
what we are reading." (pg. 152)

It seems to me, therefore, that when a parshan speaks about the peshat
of a phrase, pasuk, etc., he is speaking of what seems self-evident to
him when he reads the text. In writing down his perush, or arguing with
other perushim, he reconstructs his reading, often bringing evidence for
his position. The peshat is not, therefore, a property of the text,
but of the parshan's understanding of it. This is why parshanim can
see the same pasuk in different ways--each parshan brings a different
understanding of grammar, context (global or local), assumptions about
theology or biblical language, etc., which inevitably affects what he sees
as self-evident (pshat!). Indeed, arguments about the interpretation of
a given pasuk are often really arguments about these underlying factors
(i.e., how does the grammar work, what is minimal or maximal context,
and even what may or may not be said theologically, etc.). Unlike R'
Meir, I think that the parshan's work at the level of peshuto shel mikra
often involves (to quote him) "distant context, cognate usage, grammar,
Torah shBaal Pe and the interpretative traditon of a particular community
or school of thought" although not always consciously. R' Meir thinks
these factors come into play only at the level of omek peshuto shel mikra.

That said, it seems that (with apologies to R' Meir) omek peshuto shel
mikra is what the parshan sees at a *second* glance at the text, after he
has re-examined his reading (perhaps because his first reading doesn't
work in light of later parts of the texts or because he has seen his
interpretation disproved by another interpretation). Having questioned
one's initial "self-evident" reading, one would naturally see the "second
glance" reading as deeper--omek peshuto shel mikra (as it in fact is.)
I am inclined to think that that is what the Rashbam means by the phrase.

I found R' Meir's idea of a "mashma'o" level very enlightening. If his
definition is correct--and it certainly seems to be--the phrase peshuto
kemashma'o (in Rashi) takes on new meaning for me.

I disagree, though, with R' Meir's statement that "the purpose of
interpretation is to reconcile the particular with the general".
The purpose of interpretation is to understand the text. Sometimes that
requires us to reconcile the particular with the general, often not.
I think it is mistake to think that all texts, whether biblical or
rabbinic, need to be reconciled with one another, or subsumed under some
larger theoretical heading.

Parenthetically, I would like to suggest that one of the reasons chevruta
study is so important and so central to Jewish scholarship is precisely
because the meaning of what we read seems self-evident. Without the
stimulus of another voice, we find it very difficult to examine our
own assumptions. (This is only one of the reasons I'm enjoying this
discussion!)

And if I can end with a plug for my book: Most of it is not as
theoretical as this discussion. It largely consists of readings of
midrashim in which theoretical asides are interspersed.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

[Despite my previous request to end the thread, I feel letting this
one post through would leave things n a better note. -mi]

To clarify a grave misunderstanding that exists with a previous post:
>I understand very well that you equate the Ptil people with Jews for J, 
>or, at best, Meshichist Lubavitchers. And I must strongly reject the 
>comparison. To be honest, I think it is absurd.

It is indeed absurd. I was not making such a comparison at all, G-d forbid. 
I apologize if I mistakenly gave this impression. My point was that if a 
group believes it is doing ratzon Hashem, that is not sufficient reason by 
itself for us not to take a strong stand against it. I demonstrated the 
point by choosing extreme examples where I hoped it would be clear. I was 
not equating *any* of the groups. For that matter, I didn't even lump all 
Meshichist Lubavitchers together. I only referred to those who think 
everyone should include a chant about a person as part of the seder 
hatefilah. I have no issue with the individuals who wear murex techeiles, 
or are pro-murex. My issue is strictly with P'til for reasons I need not 
repeat.

>Moreover, I have no problem with an attempt to use science in conjunction 
>with Torah. Neither did the Gra, nor for that matter the Radzhiner

Agreed. I didn't suggest otherwise. Science in conjunction with Torah, 
where Torah is never compromised - that is beautiful.

I thank Rabbi YGB for his thoughtful comments, both public here and in our 
private e-mail exchange.

Kol Tuv!

mendel

As already announced, AishDas will be holding a melaveh malkah on Motza'ei
Shabbos Parshas Terumah, February 28th in Kehal Sha'arei Shalom in
Flatbush (directions available online at
http://shaareishalom.tripod.com/id4.html). The event will be joint with
the shul but will contain very little in terms of speeches. It is more a
time for friends to join together and bond without intermediary keyboards
and screens.

At the melaveh malkah, we will be making a communal siyum on Maseches
Megillah. We are only starting to sign people up for dapim in the
masechta, so everyone is encouraged to e-mail me with whichever daf they
would like to learn for the siyum. Attendance is not required to sign up
for a daf, so even our Israel chevra can learn one (and women are invited
to participate as well).

In order to know how much food to prepare, we request that people RSVP to
me or Micha. However, anyone can show up without advance notice.

I hope to see you there,

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:25:31 -0500 Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:

<<I ahve a related question. Wouldn't after the nisim of YamSuf it be 
considered as in the days of Dovid and Shelomo when they did not 
 accept geirim?>>

Rav Gedalia Schorr asks this and answers that an exception would
be made even bymei David uShelomo if the person were sincere.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The problem of differentiating pshat versus derash - and thus determining
the meaning of the text - is an ancient one and one that has no universal
acceptable solution even in the world of the Orthodox Jew. Even the
question of whether Rashi was primarily presenting pshat seems to be
a matter of dispute. It would be helpful if instead of focusing on the
non existent "correct" definition of these terms - the various views be
presented with examples as well as which authority holds what view. A
very intelligent example of this is Prof Jay Harris - "How do we know
this? Midrash and the fragmentation of modern Judaism". The issue
of whether texts were primarily used for reading in views - asmachta
or for extracting them is still a point of contention - e.g., Doros
HaRishonim's criticism of the Malbim (vol 5 chelek 4 chapters 7-9). Even
the nature of asmachta is a matter of dispute. Prof Harris notes -
page 23 "The approach of early Jcwish darshanim to the legal sections
of the Torah - an approach that said to the text, "Be silent until I
interpret you"-struck the emerging modern mind as simply preposterous.
Jews and Gentiles alike considered the rabbinic reading of Scripture
to represent the epitome of intellectual decadence. Who could honestly
believe that Scripture intended to prohibit selling cheeseburgers when
it said, "Do not seethe a kid in its mother's milk"? Who could honestly
believe that Scripture intended to exclude relatives from serving as
formal witnesses at a wedding? Who could honestly believe that Scripture
intended anything beyond what it actually stated and what it obviously
took for granted? The answer offered by many is that no one could.".

                         Daniel Eidensohn

See, I disagree with this approach. It is an academic driven approach that
misses the heart of what Torah means for a believing Jew. If everything
is shrouded in mist, then there can be no binding meaning and the Torah
cannot make unequivocal demands on us.

At the same time, there is wide range of interpretation out there. The
classic approach of classyfiyng them as pshat, drash or sod brings clarity
for to classify something is already to uderstand it in some fashion.

As to the last point that you made, recent academic work on interpretation
points out that there truly is a different Semitic way of experiencing
the world. Jews perceive the world as coming out of the word of Hashem
and, therefore, full of complexities and shading and echoes. To a Greek
and also a Westerner, the Logos gave birth to world of sight. We aim to
understand by seeing, unambigously. Therefore, the text is either what it
says or an allegory. We, in contrast, see different ways of interpreting
as co-existent.

I recommend Susan Handelsman, Slayers of Moses, ALbany Univ Press
regarding this. Academic insights are often helpful but they are also
always suspect. The methodology of academia is different and it has
no sympathy or even tolerance for musar, Machshava and tradition; yet,
it is those things that shoudl guide us to the overarching meaning of
patterns and approaches that we encounter as we engage in Talmud Torah.

[Email #2. I'm guessing this in reply to RnSP. -mi]

I think that we are both right but my definition is more directed toward
how Rashi would probably define these terms. To him, the pshat is what
works best in the local context. F.E. in the beginning of Parshas Yisro
he explains that Moshe was accompanied by the all of Israel because
of logic (would anyone who saw Moshe go out ot go out with him. Rashi
is reconciling with a vison of how a Rav functioned in his (and our)
time. Yet, a few psukim later it sounds as if the zkeinim are just now
coming to join them in a meal. So Rashi here chooses a better explanation
of an isolated verse versus a better explanation of the entire story.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe ZL makes this general point (not in parshas Yisro)
in his Rashi lectures which have been collected as Klalei Rashi, quoted
in the Introduction.

Your explanation is more toward the mechanics of how pshat is formed
which I really do not concern myself with.

I do believe that a primary drive for interpretation is
reconciliation. Sometimes it is with one's own experience, sometimes
with contex, sometimes with received wisdom. If not for that, why
interpret. There's got to be something bothering you or you would just
keep on reading.

M. Levin.

This week's TorahWeb devar Torah is a short comment from mv"r R' Mayer
Twersky about the importance of preparing before learning Torah. One of
the best pieces of advice I heard from him was that a good, serious
davening will greatly help your morning seder. It does not sound intuitive
but my experience is that it works extremely well. If you start your day
with ruchniyus then you change the whole day.

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rtwe_yisro.html

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]